“I Need to Do Better”: The Promotion of Undergraduate Women's STEM Identity by Engineering Faculty

Challenges Faced by Undergraduate Women in STEM

While nearly 600,000 full-time undergraduate students were enrolled in an engineering program in the United States in 2022 and over 140,000 bachelor's degrees were awarded, a mere 24.1% were awarded to women (American Society for Engineering Education, 2023). And yet, with rising levels of diversity in STEM academia and the STEM workforce, members of historically underrepresented and minoritized groups, such as women, continue to experience challenges in persisting and advancing in STEM (Clark et al., 2016; Dolet & Anderson, 2023). Research has shown that participation in STEM fields is often hindered by cultural misconceptions of women's traditional gender roles and gendered assumptions about their academic performance (Castro & Collins, 2021; Clark et al., 2016; Kricorian et al., 2020). These attributions usually start at a young age, triggering lowered educational expectations in STEM that require constant identity negotiations in educational settings (Castro & Collins, 2021; Seyranian et al., 2018).

Women, especially women of color, do not conform to the prototypical image of a “science person” (Carlone & Johnson, 2007, p. 1191). As a result, women students testify that their STEM identity is compromised, distinctly from a recognition standpoint, due in part to a lack of access to discipline-specific socialization opportunities (Rodriguez et al., 2019; Seyranian et al., 2018). Socialization frequently occurs through mentorship as faculty assist students in connecting their academic experiences with advanced education and career prospects (Crisp et al., 2017). However, women students are often subjected to implicit biases, microaggressions, stereotype threats, and overt discrimination within peer and faculty circles (Castro & Collins, 2021; Diamond & Stebleton, 2019; Morton & Parsons, 2018; Robnett et al., 2018). These hostile experiences complicate women's STEM identity and place them at a disadvantage in academia (Clark et al., 2016).

Strong identification with one's field is positively associated with academic performance (Seyranian et al., 2018), yet this acceptance remains elusive for many. Women students report experiences with unapproachable faculty, poor advising, and an overall sense of intimidation in STEM (Brainard & Carlin, 1998; Clark et al., 2016; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012). Too, they note fewer mentoring opportunities and lower quality mentoring relationships than their male counterparts (Brainard & Carlin, 1998; Clark et al., 2016). It is no surprise that many women students name the unwelcoming and unappreciative atmosphere of STEM as a reason for their departure (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012). Scholars sustain this notion, assigning women's sense of belonging and STEM identity as essential factors in their decision to persist (Brainard & Carlin, 1998; Castro & Collins, 2021; Clark et al., 2016; Diamond & Stebleton, 2019; Kricorian et al., 2020; Seyranian et al., 2018; Tate & Linn, 2005).

Factors for Success for Undergraduate Women in STEM

Equipped with adequate academic and psychological support, women students cannot only survive but thrive in this threatening environment that otherwise discourages their scientific self-confidence and, ultimately, their perseverance in STEM (Brainard & Carlin, 1998; Clark et al., 2016; Seyranian et al., 2018). Thus, it is essential to recognize the complex environmental constraints under which women's STEM identity development occurs (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Castro & Collins, 2021; Collins, 2018; Diamond & Stebleton, 2019; Tate & Linn, 2005) and to address ways to make what remains a predominantly white male sphere in higher education more inclusive (Cheryan et al., 2015; Clark et al., 2016; Piatek-Jimenez et al., 2018; Seyranian et al., 2018).

In engineering academia, less than 18% of faculty identify as women, and less than 8% as women of Black, Indigenous, or Latinx backgrounds (Main et al., 2020). Students who do not see themselves as represented in their faculty may struggle to realize feelings of belonging, fully engage academically, or construct a strong STEM identity (Kricorian et al., 2020; Main et al., 2020; Singer et al., 2020). Scholars have accordingly argued the importance of exposing students to STEM faculty and mentors who look and live as they do (Casper & Balgopal, 2020; Kricorian et al., 2020; Main et al., 2020; Singer et al., 2020).

When STEM faculty act as “institutional agents,” they proactively partake in the student life cycle from recruiting to retaining to career networking (Bensimon et al., 2019, p. 1689). Those triumphant in this endeavor do so with intentionality and a sense of responsibility. Thiry and Laursen (2011) cataloged three domains in which STEM faculty and mentors might support their undergraduate students and mentees: professional socialization, academic assistance, and personal and emotional counsel. Underrepresented students particularly profit from these domains, as they facilitate a student's ability to visualize themselves in an STEM career. Disciplinary anchoring by faculty and mentors also fortifies a student's grasp of science and the scientific process, which is especially valuable for novice STEM researchers (Balgopal et al., 2017; Thiry & Laursen, 2011). Further, STEM faculty who engage in professional learning and communities of practice around teaching were found to better connect with diverse students, engender mastery of course content, and apply promising teaching practices, all of which are critical to retaining more students in STEM (Bosman & Voglewede, 2019; Gutierrez Keeton et al., 2022; Macaluso et al., 2020; Mitchell et al., 2019).

Participants

Informed by Collins’ (2018) BSSI model, interviews were conducted with engineering faculty at Doctoral Universities with High Research Activity, commonly known as R2 institutions (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, 2018). R2 institutions were targeted due to being admissions accessible (e.g., furnishing inclusive admission policies, including being ACT and/or SAT test-optional, and supplying individualized application support) and exhibiting robust research productivity. A web search of engineering faculty at R2 institutions that offer engineering bachelor's degrees was carried out to draw a sample across every region of the United States. From these, 25 tenured and tenure-track faculty who teach undergraduate engineering courses were sent an email requesting their interview participation.

A total of 15 interviews were conducted. At the time of each interview, participant ages ranged from 34 to 66. Twelve participants self-identified as women and three as men. Two participants self-identified as Asian, four as Black, eight as white, and one as multiracial. Two participants also self-identified as international faculty. Importantly, these participants are more diverse in terms of gender and race/ethnicity than the general engineering faculty population, suggesting this topic was of unique interest to them. Engineering disciplines encompassed chemical and biomedical; civil and environmental; electrical, computer, and systems; and mechanical. Lastly, eight participants were assistant professors, three were associate professors, and four were full professors. These demographics are shown in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Demographics.

Pseudonym	Year of birth	Gender	Race/ethnicity	Engineering discipline	Faculty rank
Cara	1982	Woman	White	Chemical and Biomedical	Assistant
Chris	1978	Man	Black	Mechanical	Assistant
Cynthia	1966	Woman	White	Electrical, Computer, and Systems	Full
Eugene	1969	Man	White	Chemical and Biomedical	Associate
Guara	1979	Woman	White/Latinx	Electrical, Computer, and Systems	Assistant
Janey	1955	Woman	Asian, white	Civil and Environmental	Full
Jay	1971	Man	Black	Civil and Environmental	Full
Kelly	1983	Woman	Asian	Electrical, Computer, and Systems	Assistant
Lisa	1960	Woman	White	Electrical, Computer, and Systems	Full
Marissa	1987	Woman	Asian	Civil and Environmental	Assistant
Michelle	1987	Woman	White	Mechanical	Assistant
Natalie	1978	Woman	Black	Electrical, Computer, and Systems	Associate
Rebecca	1986	Woman	White	Civil and Environmental	Assistant
Rosalee	1977	Woman	Black	Chemical and Biomedical	Associate
Rose	1983	Woman	White	Civil and Environmental	Assistant

Data Collection

Pursuant to the Institutional Review Board, written informed consent was procured from all participants. Interviews were conducted virtually, spanning roughly one hour. An interview protocol was generated from Collins’ (2018) BSSI model to address how engineering faculty conceptualize and promote undergraduate women's STEM identity in the classroom (see Appendix). Faithfulness to this protocol ensured that questions were prudently worded and asked in a fixed order, with probing questions embedded for clarification (Patton, 2015). However, the interviews were semistructured to allow a genuine dialogue to ensue. After each interview, the automated transcripts were reviewed, cleaned, anonymized, and stored on a secured server only accessible to the research team. Each faculty member received a $50 e-gift card for participation.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity is crucial in qualitative inquiry, as it forces the cogitation and exposure of researcher bias and data misreading that might occur in a study. To this extent, we individually and collectively bracketed our experiences and beliefs about STEM identity and its promotion in the classroom through open and honest analytical dialogue (Patton, 2015). We also discussed our unique positionalities and intersectional identities concerning STEM and STEM identity. At the time of this study, we were all employed at a single higher education institution and held graduate assistant or faculty roles on campus. Moreover, we all self-identified as women and two of us received our bachelor's and master's degrees in an STEM field where we experienced marginalization from peers and faculty due to our gender. As two white women and one woman of color, we all experienced feelings of “onlyness” at some point in our careers. Which is to say, we all faced the consequences of cultural assumptions about women's roles and abilities in mathematics, sports science, and STEM education research, respectively. These experiences, in addition to learning of parallel experiences from peers, raised the need to explore how faculty can better facilitate belongingness and identity formation within STEM for undergraduate women. Throughout this study, we remained cognizant of our own experiences, for instance, negative biases around womanhood in academia, and held one another accountable for remaining attuned to our natural and learned biases during the analysis phase of this research.

Data Analysis

Data analysis procedures established by Silverman (2019) and Stake (1995) were utilized to examine the conceptual knowledge of engineering faculty regarding STEM identity and how they promote undergraduate women's STEM identity in the classroom. Silverman's (2019) inductive thematic content analysis technique was employed to search for themes pertaining to this study's research questions. The transcripts were coded individually through three rounds of review before collectively cross-referencing the codes and themes. This method allowed for flexibility when approaching data patterns in inductive ways (Silverman, 2019). Evaluative and process codes were crafted and collapsed into themes to summarize the knowledge and actions of the participants (Patton, 2015). Evaluative codes consisted of judgments about knowledge, such as unaware and passive. Process codes comprised observable actions the participants undertook, such as mentoring.

Stake's (1995) four-step deductive data analysis method of direct interpretation, categorical aggregation, pattern recognition, and naturalistic generalization was exploited to refine the initial inductive themes. A structured coding protocol was devised using Collins’ (2018) BSSI model that focused solely on the faculty component. Following Stake's first step, interview transcripts were again reviewed individually using the coding protocol to prompt direct interpretation of how the participants conceptualized STEM identity and promoted undergraduate women's STEM identity in the classroom. This approach enabled drawing interpretations consistent with the interview data individually before collectively discussing preliminary findings. In the second step, categorial aggregation was accomplished collectively by synthesizing the overarching ideas drawn from the transcripts in the first step. This stage revealed several broad themes: STEM identity (mis)understandings, classroom pedagogical passiveness, and commitment to broadening participation.

Following Stake's (1995) third step, precise content was created by grouping associated data, developing fuse codes, and refining the broad themes discerned across the interview data. Differing opinions and perspectives were debated until a consensus was met, which occurred effortlessly, as how the participants conceptualized and promoted undergraduate women's STEM identity in the classroom was quickly evident. In the fourth step, naturalistic generalization occurred by evaluating the themes to ensure they captured the entirety of the data, chiefly conflicting data, and could be applied widely (Stake, 1995). Three final themes emerged in relation to this study's research questions: (1) faculty are aware of STEM identity but cannot define it; (2) faculty passively promote STEM identity in the classroom; and (3) faculty actively promote STEM identity through research, service, and mentorship.

Trustworthiness

The trustworthiness of the findings was established by using multiple verification strategies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nowell et al., 2017). Adhering to Silverman's (2019) and Stake's (1995) inductive and deductive data analysis techniques safeguarded the integrity of the procedure and product, which ensured credibility and dependability. Confirmability was achieved by triangulation, exclusively the use of interview data collected at different times, in different spaces, and from different people as well as involving multiple researchers in the collection and analysis of this data. Saturation occurred before the conclusion of the interviews, as no fresh codes were gleaned after the sixth interview, evincing that further interviews would not bear new themes (Miles et al., 2019). Last but not least, transferability was garnered by inserting participants’ direct quotations into the findings (Patton, 2015).

Limitations

While this study's design dealt with researcher bias through reflexivity, we are unable to fully absolve ourselves from its potential influence on the findings and interpretations. Whereas we all believe creating more inclusive classroom spaces by attending to the STEM identity of women could retain more women in engineering and yield greater scientific discovery and innovation, none of us possess an engineering background nor are engineering faculty. It follows that the data was approached from an outsider's perspective, which may limit the depth of comprehension of participant perspectives despite being social scientists trained in qualitative methods within educational settings.

Faculty are Aware of STEM Identity but Cannot Define It

Most participants reported awareness of the concept of STEM identity but nonetheless struggled to define it. As Cynthia relayed, “I think of it more as a personal, an internal assessment, rather than an external assessment.” Guara similarly stated, “That's a good question. I never thought about it…I think [it] would be determination and competence.” Jay also intimated the idea of competence:

I've heard of [STEM identity], but I don't know if I've got a full understanding…when you think of STEM, you think of obviously science…You have to be able to think critically and solve problems that are beneficial to the broader good.

Relatedly, many participants stressed the rigor of engineering programs and the need to prioritize student learning of engineering content, insinuating that the cultivation of STEM identity was not a priority. As Michelle explained,

Some of these classes are so intense…most of them don't know what hit them…there is not a lot of extra time that I have figured out to kind of weave in these important themes [of STEM identity], other than just like here's the content, good luck.

Faculty Passively Promote STEM Identity in the Classroom

Most participants reported never intentionally thinking about STEM identity, whether for themselves or their students, so the majority had not considered how to infuse it into the classroom. Only a few were able to pinpoint ways in which they pedagogically promoted student STEM identity. As Eugene disclosed, “I don't think we talk about it necessarily in like the engineering curriculum very much anyway in those terms.” Rebecca similarly stated, “I think we as faculty need to be doing a better job at accounting for those differences [in the classroom] in student background and valuing them.” And so, though an awareness existed of the lack of women in engineering, markedly in certain engineering subdisciplines, it did not translate into deliberate action in the classroom.

After discussing the meaning of STEM identity with participants, many revealed highlighting influential engineers and inviting guest lecturers, especially those from historically underrepresented and minoritized populations, as a way they pay heed to student STEM identity. This was ostensibly necessary, as a heightened attentiveness was observed of those visible and invisible in engineering and of the importance of students seeing themselves as engineers. As Kelly noted, “I got as many female scientists as I could so that the ratio is more diverse, so it's not all men coming and giving a talk.” Rose backed, “Seeing success stories of people who look like you is useful.” While Janey shared that she brought diverse speakers into her classroom, she had considered it as a way to increase student STEM identity but now planned to do so more often. Natalie explained why this is needed, “People of color or women, you know, when you are surrounded by men, when you are surrounded by white men and, then let's say you're struggling, right? You can think, well, I don't belong here.” But though a large number of participants included talks from diverse individuals in their curriculum, they did not divulge to their students their rationale for doing so, instead merely hoping it would impart the message that even as diversity exists in engineering, more is needed. Participants were unsure if this message was heard, let alone resonated with their students.

Another passive way participants sponsored STEM identity in the classroom was through team-based activities. As Chris relayed, “When it comes to group work, I try not to kind of isolate the women in the group. I try to encourage participation and for them to speak up in the classroom.” When asked how he accomplished this, he said:

I tend to look for natural abilities, and I try to accentuate them, so if a person is a natural leader, I’ll make them a group leader…[but] I don’t try to develop something in someone that they don’t already have.

Faculty Actively Promote STEM Identity Through Research, Service, and Mentorship

All participants reported engaging students in ways that actively promoted their sense of belonging and STEM self-concept through research, service, and mentorship. However, they did not formally associate these outcomes with STEM identity. As Cynthia shared,

I try to get them [students] involved in a research project that's tangible, that's something that can be published, that's something that they can present a poster on. And I think that gives them some confidence…but in classes, that's tough…I think everybody needs to find their own journey, so I don't want to push anything.

Participants also proclaimed fueling student STEM identity through engaging students in their service efforts on campus and in their local community. They noted coaxing their students to assist in outreach events such as visiting K-12 schools to expose younger students to STEM topics. As Kelly illustrated,

Students get to do their outreach activities to elementary school kids and middle school kids. And so, they get that feedback too when a little kid comes in and gets really amazed by the simple experiment…they feel reinforced that they are doing something great.

Moreover, all participants spoke of their work in mentoring undergraduate women as a way to nurture their STEM identity. This mentoring came through individual conversations and “cheerleading sessions” that promoted perseverance. As Jay clarified:

What I’m trying to do is prepare them by telling them their job is to go out there and change mindsets, and they do that by being good at what they do and also overlooking some people who are not worth their time.

Implications for Practice

These findings reinforce the importance of professional learning, specifically that designed to elevate engineering faculty's conceptualization and promotion of undergraduate women's STEM identity in the classroom. This study submits that a desire exists to learn more about this concept and promising practices that could be leveraged to advance women in engineering beyond engagement in research labs and direct mentorship. Programming must emphasize improving beliefs about women's capacity to be engineers and understanding that calculus may not be the sole pathway to strong engineering performance. In addition, as faculty time is finite, programming should embrace measures that entice participation in STEM identity classroom-based professional learning opportunities but do not overstrain those already committed to this work, particularly white women faculty and faculty of color.

Engineering departments and individual faculty would do well to integrate Collins’ (2018) BSSI model into their curriculum as it was a valuable tool for communicating and organizing ideas around STEM identity, how faculty are indispensable to developing student STEM identity, and the importance of asset-based thinking. This integration may benefit women and aid in the persistence rates of every student through an augmented sense of belonging. When faculty employ an asset-based approach to the intersectional identities women students bring to their major pursuits, they enrich their STEM identity and improve STEM graduation rates (Diamond & Stebleton, 2019; Morton & Parsons, 2018). Conversely, the participants in this study tended to apply a deficit-based approach to their students as they focused on what students were lacking, such as a strong calculus background. Transitioning to an asset-based approach by focusing on strengths is imperative if diversity of thought, culture, and traits are to be deemed positive (Garriott, 2019). Faculty must ensure students are valued for what they bring to the classroom rather than being characterized by what they are perceived to be lacking. This could benefit faculty in STEM and higher education in general, as faculty conceptions of students’ academic abilities and talents are often limited and narrow.

Recommendations for Research

Though this inquiry expands upon how engineering faculty conceptualize STEM identity and promote undergraduate women's STEM identity in the classroom, future research in this area is needed. Recommendations involve increasing the sample, collecting and analyzing data from multiple sources, and utilizing mixed methods to support the trustworthiness of these findings. For instance, exploring syllabi, course materials, and departmental and college policies would paint a more comprehensive picture of the ways in which faculty promote women's STEM identity in the classroom. These types of investigations would strengthen the understanding of the ways in which the environment affects student STEM identity as articulated in the Collins’ (2018) BSSI model.

Relatedly, future exploration is warranted on the tangible and intangible benefits of promoting the STEM identity of undergraduate women. Enhancing the pedagogical practices aimed at infusing STEM identity concepts into the undergraduate engineering classroom is needed. This can be achieved using evidence from the robust and growing literature base on what students report influences their STEM identity (see Castro & Collins, 2021; Diamond & Stebleton, 2019; Morton & Parsons, 2018; Robnett et al., 2018; Rodriguez et al., 2019; Thiry & Laursen, 2011; Wade-Jaimes et al., 2021).

Lastly, a greater understanding is needed of whether the promotion of STEM identity in undergraduate education is, in fact, “too late,” as postulated by some participants. Several cited this as a rationale for not focusing on STEM identity with college students and felt greater results would occur if efforts were directed at K-12 students. One participant, Chris, stated that this position is a “convenient out” for faculty to absolve themselves of engaging in the important work of broadening and diversifying participation, which he believes is critical to continued disciplinary inclusion efforts and innovation in the field.